These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

abandoned high sec POS's

Author
Tycolobo
Perkone
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-03-31 04:00:17 UTC
is there a system to remove unpowered towers on moons in high sec ?
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#2 - 2013-03-31 04:57:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tau Cabalander
Yes. It is a declaration of war, or "wardec", followed by a day of AFK shooting in a capacitor stable laser ship (no tank) with T1 crystals that never wear out, and drones. A large pulse Apocalypse works well (it has a lot of capacitor).

Recently some friends took down a Caldari medium using 4 faction fit Coercers and one battleship. They moved shortly later though, as they were getting too many wardecs to operate. Moon was quickly taken by a 1 man corp and a small online Caldari tower. Location. Location. Location.
Skorpynekomimi
#3 - 2013-03-31 10:30:15 UTC
Wardec system, and amarr BSes. Pew pew pew pew pew pew pew, for hours on end.

Economic PVP

Officer Nyota Uhura
#4 - 2013-03-31 11:02:22 UTC
Skorpynekomimi wrote:
Wardec system, and amarr BSes. Pew pew pew pew pew pew pew, for hours on end.

Prepare to have breakfast, lunch, and dinner watching those lazors. Or bring a lot of friends. It's no fun and I don't recommend it to anyone.
Skorpynekomimi
#5 - 2013-03-31 11:08:20 UTC
Officer Nyota Uhura wrote:
Skorpynekomimi wrote:
Wardec system, and amarr BSes. Pew pew pew pew pew pew pew, for hours on end.

Prepare to have breakfast, lunch, and dinner watching those lazors. Or bring a lot of friends. It's no fun and I don't recommend it to anyone.


It's much like a mining op, but with no hauling (unless someone's burning ammo), and no moving.

However, there are PoS removal services available.

Economic PVP

Sola Mercury
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2013-03-31 13:20:14 UTC
Puls fitted Dominix is also good at this.
Zircon Dasher
#7 - 2013-03-31 17:58:43 UTC
I just wish they would remove the war-dec necessity. Shooting a tower should only get you a suspect flag, and repping a tower should also grant one.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Rengerel en Distel
#8 - 2013-03-31 18:37:06 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
I just wish they would remove the war-dec necessity. Shooting a tower should only get you a suspect flag, and repping a tower should also grant one.


isk sink.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

Lord Battlestar
CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
Atrox Urbanis Respublique Abundatia
#9 - 2013-03-31 20:28:56 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
I just wish they would remove the war-dec necessity. Shooting a tower should only get you a suspect flag, and repping a tower should also grant one.


Repping a tower does give a suspect flag if it was recently aggressed, it was a recent change. As for making a tower a suspect timer that would never happen because too many people would revolt lol

I once podded myself by blowing a huge fart.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#10 - 2013-04-01 10:47:47 UTC
Realistically towers should be hauled and impounded by concord. To deploy one in high sec, you have to buy charters to pay for the space. There's no way one of the factions would allow you to keep that space free of charge for years with an inactive tower.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Kodama Ikari
Thragon
#11 - 2013-04-01 14:09:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Kodama Ikari
'Zircon Dasher' wrote:
I just wish they would remove the war-dec necessity. Shooting a tower should only get you a suspect flag, and repping a tower should also grant one.

There are at least half a dozen reasons why this would be a bad idea, all to save a few people the trouble of wardeccing. Furthermore, if I'm going to be shooting a tower afk or semi-afk, i'd much rather be flagged towards a few guys than a global suspect.


Lucas Kell wrote:
Realistically towers should be hauled and impounded by concord. To deploy one in high sec, you have to buy charters to pay for the space. There's no way one of the factions would allow you to keep that space free of charge for years with an inactive tower.


*fanwank mode on*

But they weren't using that space anyway, and cleaning up offline towers for capsuleers would ostensibly take far more money in bureaucratic time/effort than could reasonably be recovered in fines (lets pretend there is some actual political/bureaucratic cost towards pursuing this, beyond CCP removing isk from your wallet). Since the tower is offline, the capsuleer has indicated a willingness to abandon it, hence the empire faction has very little leverage over the capsuleer. So they take the position of just collecting their cut when the capsuleers have an actual motivation to comply. Furthermore, since the empires all own so much contiguous space, if someone finds a moon occupied and decides to use a different one, chances are it'll be the same system or same constellation, so its not like the empires are losing out on revenue due to these abandoned towers. Lastly, some capsuleers do remove their own towers or the abandoned towers of others, and that is all done at zero cost to the empire faction. So everyone wins.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#12 - 2013-04-01 14:17:59 UTC
Towers especially small and medium do not cost a lot of isk. If you need a tower you need to grind base standings just to be able to anchor it. maintaining 5.0 corp standings or up to 7.0 depending on this system you want to anchor in, is not as easy at you might think.

You can have a single character with the required standings, start a new corp, then anchor the tower. Easy yes, But once you bring others into the corp standings will almost always drop below the needed threshold. What happens if you no longer need the tower, but expect to need it again in the near future? Do you take it down, and go through all that trouble to re-anchor later, or do you just leave it? The price of most towers is small compared to the hassle of getting the needed corp standings. This is why most will just leave the tower anchored and off line.

Often times these towers get forgotten, or the accounts belonging to the players that anchored them go inactive. But most of the time they are simply left to hold the spot. Ia am not saying this is right but only that this is what is currently done in EVE.

For example I myself have both an active small tower I am using for research, and also an offline large tower anchored. I did not need a large tower at the time, but since I was going through the steps to build faction to anchor in a 0.7 system, and large towers are cheap I thought I might as well anchor one just in case I want to upgrade later. This trend has resulted in most desirable systems having no open moons. After all I had to work to take down dead towers to get the moons I now currently hold, so why should I give them up for free? It may not cost me anything to hold the moon with an offline tower, but It did cost me significant time to clear the previous tower in order to get that moon.

If you want a moon in a system where all the moons are taken, my advice is look for small offline towers. Of there are none you will have to go for a medium, but a small tower can be taken down fairly quickly with only 4 battleships. If you can bring 4 battleships averaging 1000DPS each (all gank no tank) which is fairly easy to do. With 4000 DPS you can take down a small offline tower in about an hour. A medium will take about 2 1/2 hours and a large about 5 hours. But you need to war dec the corp and wait 24 hours before you can attack. Plan out your attack and time the war dec so that you can attack as soon as possible after the war becomes valid. This will minimize their warning and response time. When picking a target you will want to try to maximize the chances that the pos belongs to a dead corp. do some research into the POSes owning corp, how many members, add the C.E.O. to your watch list. etc.

Another option is to contact to corp and offer them 50M to take the tower down. Why? well it will cost you 50M any way for the war dec, And giving it to them will save you the time grinding down the tower. If they do not reply then chances are it is a dead corp.

Bashing POSes is boring, and generally gives zero return in loot. This is why there are so many dead towers floating around. It is not worth the bother for anyone to bash them unless they need the moon. If you need a tower, even if you are a solo player and plan on it being a one man copr using the tower, how many accounts do you have? You will have trouble making a profit off a POS with a single character, even three characters on 1 account will not be able to fully use even a small tower. So how many characters/accounts that will be using the POS do you have available? hopefully at least 4. Each account need to be able to field at bear minimum a amarr ship with 8 large turrets, even if it is just an oracle. Fit want you need to make it cap stable and a full rack of 8 large pulse lasers. This will allow you a ship per account that will have unlimited ammo that can be left AFK shooting the tower when the time comes. It sucks but this is the best way to go. Any system with open moons are generally system either not worth having a POS in or the office rental fees are to high to be worth using.

You absolutely must have an office in the same system as your POS. It is easy to check if each POS owner in a system has an office. If you find a POS without a office belonging to the same corp in that system then you know if it is being used for research the BPO's are in the POS. this makes you and your POS war targets as the BPO's in your POS could make the POS bash worthwhile. There are many systems within 8 jumps of Jita where you can get an office for under 1M per month. I am currently paying between 300,000-400,000 isk and am less than 8 jumps from Jita. But I had to clear POSes to get the moons I now hold.

Frank Doberman
7th Church of the Apocalyptic Lawnmower
#13 - 2013-04-02 00:35:01 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Realistically towers should be hauled and impounded by concord. To deploy one in high sec, you have to buy charters to pay for the space. There's no way one of the factions would allow you to keep that space free of charge for years with an inactive tower.


I'd suggest some form of wheel clamping system.

I the interests of 'emergent gameplay', within seconds of your tower being anchored, player run corps could send waves of dodgy 'clampers' in T1 frigates to render your PoS inoperable, and insist you pay an outrageously exorbitant fine to have the tower released.

Actually, CCP could develop this concept further, and when you leave an off-line tower in a hisec system, NPC bailiffs should descend on the Corp office in the nearest station and confiscate property to 100x the value of the Tower.

This should also completely wreck your credit rating, and you should be forced to pay any monies outstanding at the local Post Office with a book of paper pay-in slips.

The fact I seem to know all about how this works in no way indicates I've been involved in anything so scummy and embarrassing myself. Smile
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#14 - 2013-04-02 12:30:58 UTC
I was really thinking along quite simple lines with my suggestion. The problem is that offline corps take up too many moons, and it seems to be a huge time and money sink to clear them. Impounding of the POS would be an effective way of removing this issue without having to change the way the corp system currently works. If you go inactive while renting an office for example, anything in it gets impounded until you pay a release fee.

In the same way, the POS should be impounded if you haven't kept paying the owner of the space for the rights to use their space. This should then be retrievable by the corp if they come back by paying a release fee.

I understand that some people are not inactive and hold moons to hold the space, but this wouldn't be required if many of the moons weren't taken up by inactive corps.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Styth spiting
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2013-04-02 12:55:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Styth spiting
Just because a tower is offline doesn't mean its not in use.

The player may simply be low on isk and can't afford to fuel it
It might be a place holder to sell the moon to an interested party.
It might be a logistical positioning to keep others from anchoring.
The corp may not currently have jobs to run, but do not want to kick all their members, disabnd their corp, pay for a new tower to be anchored and have all the members rejoin (read: Damn near impossible to anchor a POS in highsec with a high non-alt user count).

And so on. They could be on vacation, simply forgot about fuel, just wanted to put up towers everywhere etc.

Basically there are many uses for an offline POS, and many situations where a POS may go offline or be placed offline for a short time. Last thing we need are people to lose billions of isk worth of stuff because they left their POS go offline for a week or two. There are also so many moons that there is no reason to remove them. And chances are if there was a system like you suggest in place it would already be taken by another active POS because apparently you want to anchor a POS in a high traffic area and think an offline POS is there getting no use.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#16 - 2013-04-02 13:07:49 UTC
Well the examples "place holder to sell the moon" and "logistical positioning to keep others from anchoring" are both invalid, since it's not your space. Why would the Caldari for example allow you to block other people from using their moons with an inactive POS that earns them nothing?

I'm not in any way saying that every offline POS should be taken down. I'm saying you should have to pay your licence to keep your pos anchored even if it is offline. This way, you can't hold a moon for eternity with an offline POS that costs you nothing to keep there.

This also makes more sense, as the owner of the space is losing revenue from you holding that POS offline. If you had to pay your licence fee regardless, the space holder wouldn't care as long as they are getting paid.

I’m perfectly happy with losing a moon to an active corp that wants to use the moon, but losing it to someone that is inactive, or that wants to hold the moon just to stop others using it is hardly fair.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Bloody Wench
#17 - 2013-04-04 21:33:38 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well the examples "place holder to sell the moon" and "logistical positioning to keep others from anchoring" are both invalid, since it's not your space. Why would the Caldari for example allow you to block other people from using their moons with an inactive POS that earns them nothing?

I'm not in any way saying that every offline POS should be taken down. I'm saying you should have to pay your licence to keep your pos anchored even if it is offline. This way, you can't hold a moon for eternity with an offline POS that costs you nothing to keep there.

This also makes more sense, as the owner of the space is losing revenue from you holding that POS offline. If you had to pay your licence fee regardless, the space holder wouldn't care as long as they are getting paid.

I’m perfectly happy with losing a moon to an active corp that wants to use the moon, but losing it to someone that is inactive, or that wants to hold the moon just to stop others using it is hardly fair.



Blah blah blah dribble dribble dribble

fucksake just 'dec them and shoot it.

As you go through life mate, you're going to see a lot of **** that isn't 'fair', however most people stop with the 'oh that's just not fair' tantrums by the time they hit 20 or so.

[u]**Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote: **[/u]  CCP should not only make local delayed in highsec, but they should also require one be undocked to use it. Then, even the local spammers have some skin in the game. Support a High Resolution Texture Pack

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#18 - 2013-04-09 09:53:11 UTC
Bloody Wench wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Well the examples "place holder to sell the moon" and "logistical positioning to keep others from anchoring" are both invalid, since it's not your space. Why would the Caldari for example allow you to block other people from using their moons with an inactive POS that earns them nothing?

I'm not in any way saying that every offline POS should be taken down. I'm saying you should have to pay your licence to keep your pos anchored even if it is offline. This way, you can't hold a moon for eternity with an offline POS that costs you nothing to keep there.

This also makes more sense, as the owner of the space is losing revenue from you holding that POS offline. If you had to pay your licence fee regardless, the space holder wouldn't care as long as they are getting paid.

I’m perfectly happy with losing a moon to an active corp that wants to use the moon, but losing it to someone that is inactive, or that wants to hold the moon just to stop others using it is hardly fair.



Blah blah blah dribble dribble dribble

fucksake just 'dec them and shoot it.

As you go through life mate, you're going to see a lot of **** that isn't 'fair', however most people stop with the 'oh that's just not fair' tantrums by the time they hit 20 or so.

Is this some kind of serious response or a joke?
Paying 50 million and wasting a day to shoot down and POS someone placed 3 years ago before they stopped playing is a ridiculous waste of effort. If you don't understand that then clearly you don't value your time.

I've said I have no issue with wardeccing an active corp to remove a POS that is in my way, but there is simply no point in having a system that means you have to war dec inactive corps.
and due to the nature of high sec, the high sec factions are losing income from moons that are being held by inactive corps, so it doesn't even make any RP sense.

Yes, I'm actually aware of the whole "life isn't fair" thing. Much like a large amount of EVE Players I am in fact an adult. That doesn't mean that everything has to stay the way it is. I think if this went to a general player vote, you'd find the majority couldn't care less either way, then many people would be pro the idea of removing inactive POSes in High Sec, then the minority would disagree.

PS: If you don't actually have anything constructive to add to the post, such as your reasoning for disagreeing or an alternative idea, then there's no real need to post.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#19 - 2013-04-09 12:26:03 UTC
I am pretty sure that there are a whole legion of CCP devs whos live for posts like yours.
without your tantrum tears they would have coded a bad system for nothing.
"Paying 50 million and wasting a day to shoot down and POS someone placed 3 years ago before they stopped playing is a ridiculous waste of effort. If you don't understand that then clearly you don't value your time."

So dont do it. find another moon.
Or else its all just "wah wah i want this one not that one"
also welcome to an issue that people have been talking about since i joined this game.
almost five years ago.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#20 - 2013-04-09 17:25:38 UTC
Kusum Fawn wrote:
I am pretty sure that there are a whole legion of CCP devs whos live for posts like yours.
without your tantrum tears they would have coded a bad system for nothing.
"Paying 50 million and wasting a day to shoot down and POS someone placed 3 years ago before they stopped playing is a ridiculous waste of effort. If you don't understand that then clearly you don't value your time."

So dont do it. find another moon.
Or else its all just "wah wah i want this one not that one"
also welcome to an issue that people have been talking about since i joined this game.
almost five years ago.

There's no tears here, its called a discussion, and its what adults do when they have 2 opposing points of view.
You don't seem to have a point of view though, you are just here to troll. You aren't adding anything constructive and you clearly misinterpret the point.
I have several moons in prime locations, and am happy with them, so I don't need to find another. The point is however that with moons being held by inactive accounts, they will eventually run out in high sec. At some point, CCP will have make a change, its an inevitability. It may be that with the introduction of Dust and Planetary Conquest, high sec planets and their moons will be passed to player ownership, who knows.

I'm well aware it's an issue that's been around for a very long time and there have been numerous discussions about it. I'm hardly a new kid on the block. I also post from my main...

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

12Next page